“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Friday, March 01, 2013

President Obama suggested the concept of “sequester” in late 2011. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending.

Obama Sounds a False Alarm Over Sequestration

Even if the cuts come to pass, Obama's job is to make the executive branch of the federal government work.

In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.

His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board—on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate specifically the unconstitutional and pork barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn't have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.

The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.

Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.

The question remains: What part of each federal department (Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, etc.) will suffer these reduced increases? Here is where this sequester experiment gets dicey.

The president—who once championed the idea of sequesters and even threatened to veto any congressional effort to dismantle them—now has decided he can't live without that additional 2 percent to spend. So, he has gone about the country trying to scare the daylights out of people: Prisoners will be released from federal prisons, soldiers won't have enough bullets in their weapons, we will need to endure five-hour waiting lines at the airports, Social Security checks will be late, and similar nonsense.

If the fears Obama predicts do come to pass, we will have only him to blame. Remember, the sequesters only cut planned increases in spending. Suppose the president planned to hire 100 more soldiers for the Army and agents for the TSA and air traffic controllers for the FAA. Is the president required to hire only 98 of them? Well, under the law, he has a choice. He can hire all 100 and cut back elsewhere, or he can make do on 98 percent of what he has determined are the government's additional needs. But he cannot just intentionally release prisoners or weaken the military or inflict maddening delays on the flying public in order to make his fearful warnings come to pass.

His job is to uphold the Constitution, to make the executive branch of the federal government work. The president has taken an oath to "faithfully execute" his office. The words of the oath are prescribed in the Constitution. The word "faithfully" requires him to enforce the laws whether or not he agrees with them. It also requires him to enforce the laws in such a manner that they make sense—so that the federal government basically performs the services we have grown to expect of it.

I know, we have grown to expect more of the federal government than the Founders dreamed, and far more than we can possibly pay for, and infinitely more than the Constitution authorizes. But that's the good thing about these sequesters: They will force the president to prioritize.

If he prioritizes so that we stay free and safe, so that the government does what we basically have paid it to do, he'll be doing his job and saving us a tiny bit of cash. But if the president enforces the laws so that they hurt rather than work well just so he can say "I told you so" rather than "I'll work with you," then he will be inviting his own political misery or even his own impeachment. And we will have sunk deeper into the abyss of fear, division and red ink that already engulfs us.

The “Budget Control Act of 2011” (the Act) just enacted includes procedures to raise the debt limit by up to $2.4 trillion, in two installments, with procedures for Congress to disapprove the increases. The Act caps discretionary spending, which, in conjunction with other savings in the bill, saves more than $900 billion over ten years. The Act then allows the debt ceiling to be increased by $900 billion. It links the size of the second debt limit increase to the outcome of a new Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the Joint Committee) charged with finding at least $1.5 trillion in additional savings. If Congress subsequently approves deficit reduction of more than $1.2 trillion, then the debt ceiling would be increased by the amount of that deficit reduction up to $1.5 trillion. If this additional deficit reduction is not agreed to by December 23, (i.e., if the Joint Committee does not produce recommended savings of at least $1.2 trillion or if the recommendations are rejected by a majority vote in either the House or the Senate), the second debt ceiling increase will be $1.2 trillion. That increase in the debt ceiling will be accompanied by equal across-the-board cuts in both defense and non-defense spending every year for nine years; none of the cuts will be implemented before January 2013.

The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.

Senate Vote

The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26. 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.

Presidential signature:

President Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate. In doing so, the president said, "Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year."

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of the largest-ever leak of classified U.S. documents, pleaded guilty Thursday to several criminal counts, admitting he provided documents to the website WikiLeaks. But he continues to fight the most serious accusations he faces, including aiding the enemy.

The testimony in court at Fort Meade, Md., likely will hurt the government's attempts to build a case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that he induced the leak of classified information.

Pfc. Manning contended no one from WikiLeaks pressured him to turn over documents. He said he approached at least two news organizations before transferring the classified documents.

A military judge accepted the guilty pleas on 10 counts related to the release of classified information. Pfc. Manning faces up to 20 years in prison for the 10 counts.

The plea didn't result from an agreement with prosecutors, but appears to be a strategy to allow Pfc. Manning's lawyers to contest the most serious charges—aiding the enemy and violation of the espionage act. Conviction for aiding the enemy could lead to a sentence of life in prison.

As Rufus has pointed out deficits are projected to go down, so even though we are spending much more than we collect in taxes, and the national debt continues to grow, and spending continues to grow and Obamacare will cost much more than projected, as has medicare and every other liberal scheme, all is well if you can will yourself to see it that way.

PBUH

Once you learn to live on 2nd derivatives of spending growth, your plate will always be full.

Republicans have once again blinked in a contest with Democrats. This time, it wasn’t the budget. The GOP has now embraced an expansion of government that violates the principles of federalism out of a fear of being labeled the anti-women party.The GOP-dominated House rolled over Thursday with an overwhelming 238-168 vote in favor of a radically expanded Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act. Eighty-seven weak-kneed Republicans were cowed by the bill’s title into approving special treatment for lesbian, bisexual and transgendered women. The bill also grants more visas to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and gives Indian tribal authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of a reservation — a provision which raises serious constitutional questions.The measure, which now heads to President Obama for his signature, even expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.” All this is an obvious political ploy. Democrats are recycling the “Republican war on women” theme they used during the November elections, and they hope it will win for them the keys to the House in 2014.Violence against women is deplorable, without exception. So, too, is violence against men. Domestic violence and similar reprehensible acts are already crimes under state law that should be vigorously enforced. Republicans are too afraid of the political consequences to pause and ask what business the federal government has in getting involved in a law enforcement matter that states are perfectly capable of handling on their own.

Ron Paul recommends one group of Americans who should be disarmed: federal agents.

While I oppose most gun control proposals, there is one group of Americans I do believe should be disarmed: federal agents. The use of force by federal agents to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws is one of the major, albeit overlooked, threats to liberty. Too often Americans are victimized by government force simply for engaging in commercial transactions disproved of by Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

For example, the offices of Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, have been repeatedly raided by armed federal and state agents, and Rawesome’s founder, 65-year old James Stewart, has been imprisoned. What heinous crime justified this action? Rawesome sold unpasteurized (raw) milk and cheese to willing customers – in a state where raw milk is legal! You cannot even drink milk from a cow without a federal permit!

This is hardly the only case of federal agents using force against those who would dare meet consumer demand for raw milk. In 2011 armed agents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raided the business of Pennsylvanian Amish farmer Dan Allgyer. Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many millions of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to stop Allgyer from selling his raw milk to willing customers.

The use of force against individuals making choices not approved of by the political elite does not just stop with raw milk. The Natural News website has documented numerous accounts of federal persecution, including armed raids, of health food stores and alternative medical practitioners.

Federal bureaucrats are also using force to crack down on the makers of gold coins for fear that people may use these coins as an alternative to the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency. Bernard von NotHaus, the founder of Liberty Dollars, is currently awaiting sentencing on federal counterfeiting charges — even though Mr. von NotHaus took steps to ensure his coins where not used as “legal tender.”

Yet, the federal government was so concerned over the possibility that Mr. von NotHaus’s customers might use his coins in regular day-to-day commerce they actually labeled Mr. von NotHaus a “terrorist.”

These type of police state tactics used against, among others, raw milk producers, alternative health providers, and gold coin dealers is justified by the paternalistic attitude common in Washington, D.C. A member of Congress actually once told me that, “The people need these types of laws because they do not know what is good for them.” This mindset fuels the growth of the nanny state and inevitably leads to what C.S. Lewis said may be the worst from of tyranny “…a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims.”

All Americans, even if they do not believe it is a wise choice to drink raw milk or use gold coins, should be concerned about the use of force to limit our choices. This is because there is no limiting principle to the idea that the government force is justified if used “for our own good.” Today it is those who sell raw milk who are being victimized by government force, tomorrow it could be those who sell soda pop or Styrofoam cups. Therefore, all Americans should speak out against these injustices.

Now that I am back in my stronghold, off the road, and off my handheld, I was able to look in more detail at Federal spending (which is way way out of control) as a percentage of the GDP.

My dear and most excellent friend, Rufus was right, the numbers I posted included state and local. So the percentages are around 24 or 25%. I sure hope he forgives me, as I don't want to get banned from "The L" for disagreeing with him, s he is want to do.

However, as I still try to make my point on out of control spending, instead of quibbling over percentage points, consider the following:

Federal spending began the 20th century at less than 3 percent of GDP per year. It jerked above 24 percent as a result of World War I and then declined in the 1920s to 3 to 4 percent by 1929. Federal spending started to increase after the Crash of 1929, and rose above 10 percent in the depths of the Great Depression.

Federal spending exploded during World War II to nearly 48 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 15 percent in the late 1940s.

In the Korean War of the early 1950s federal spending increased to over 20 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 17 to 18 percent by the end of the 1950s. In the 1960s federal spending began a slow increase to about 22 percent of GDP in the early 1980s, and then declined modestly to about 18 percent by 2000.

In the 2000s federal spending increased modestly to about 20 percent of GDP before exploding to 24 to 25 percent in the Crash of 2008.

Also this:

federal spending grew 71 percent faster than inflation. ■Entitlement spending more than doubled over the past 20 years, growing by 110 percent (after adjusting for inflation). Discretionary spending grew by 60 percent. ■Deficits have pushed up the debt each year since 2002 as federal spending exceeded revenue. Fiscal year 2012 marked the fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion deficits. ■Although debt held by the public surged from 33.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2002 to 73 percent in 2012, net interest costs have held below 2 percent of GDP because interest rates have fallen to all-time lows. ■In 1962, defense spending was nearly half the total federal budget (49 percent); Social Security and other mandatory programs were less than one-third of the budget (31 percent). Two major entitlement programs, Medicaid and Medicare, were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965. ■In 2012 entitlements were nearly 62 percent of total spending, while defense dropped to less than one-fifth (18.7 percent) of the budget.

"In 1962, defense spending was nearly half the total federal budget (49 percent); Social Security and other mandatory programs were less than one-third of the budget (31 percent). Two major entitlement programs, Medicaid and Medicare, were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965.

■In 2012 entitlements were nearly 62 percent of total spending, while defense dropped to less than one-fifth (18.7 percent) of the budget."

"There is nothing just or virtuous about protecting a stale welfare state that is failing the people it is supposed to help."

In a sharply written statement, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama blasts President Obama for campaigning and not governing. He calls Obama's response to the sequestration "the most cynical behavior I have seen during my time in Washington."

Adds the senator, "Replacing the sequester would require the President to save $85 billion out of a $3,500 billion federal budget.

One would think that any President would leap at the opportunity to make government more effective and responsive.

But what does the President do instead? He says Republicans are ‘cutting vital services for children’ in order to ‘benefit the well-off and well-connected.’

This has been the strategy now for years: block any attempt to reform the government and then relentlessly attack the reformers. Does any lawmaker, reporter, or citizen believe that the only way to save taxpayer dollars is to hurt children, that every government program is effective and helpful and not one penny is wasted?"

I found that head line...curious. The Golf game with tiger cost as much as 341 Federal Workers Furloughed - really? How's that work?

I read the article. The only reference to the Headline was:

"Yet, his golf weekend at the yacht club with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers over a million dollars—enough money to save 341 federal workers from furlough," Sessions writes."

Ok, so they assert (truthfully??) that the Golf weekend cost taxpayers 1 million dollars (I'd like to see where that number comes from). So, if true, that means that it costs 2932 dollars to save each furloughed worker (1 million divided by 341). Each worker gets paid about 3 thousand bucks...

SE Misery deserves noting. Momma was born in Kennett in 1932. She will tell you how the cow eats the corn. All a person has to do is ask her. Turned 80 in Dec. Shes been putting up with my shot for 57 years.

My best friend when I was young lived in Booneville area, SW, isn't it?He was definitely different than my CA Buds.Turned me on to aircraft....he'd come out summers to live with Granny who was almost my next door neighbor.

And see his dad sometimes.

Livere, or some such weird name.

He'd poke fun at me, saying things like:

"He likes to smell girls Bicycle Seats!"

Childhood Traumas like that probly turned me into the Vulgar Perv I am now.

My Ma was born in '11.My cousin's husband was also from Mo.My favorite relative, Stratton Tarvin.When he died, she married his best friend from childhood!...really should get in touch, wonderful woman, must be near 90.

Every Beltway Establishment Republican knows that all Hispanics are hardworking, God Fearing, Highly Educated, Family Values Centered Folks holding deeply held beliefs wrt The Founders and the Moral Foundation of this country!

All we need do is out-Democrat the Democrats, and we will have a permanent majority Hispanic electorate.

“Don’t nobody produce a video which might be in the slightest bit offensive to Muslims anywhere in the world. For it will in due time be the cause of some horrible catastrophe that will be viewed by drone for 24 hours at least until the object in view burns down to the ground unexpectedly.”

Like personal defense weapons, it’s time for a common sense, balanced approach to free speech. Nobody needs dangerous, hurtful ‘assault movies’ and speech. High capacity books are just too dangerous outside the halls of ivy.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.